Vijayshankar Pandey doesn’t want to live any more. The farmer from Ramgarh, Uttar Pradesh, has AIDS and has sold most of his farmland for his treatment. But Pandey has to live. In August, his request to the President of India to allow him to die was turned down.

Pandey’s is not an isolated case. In 2004, K. Venkatesh, a former national chess champion battling Duchenne’s Muscular Dystrophy, a neurological disorder, had pleaded to be taken off his life support system. The Andhra Pradesh High Court rejected his plea on the ground that euthanasia or mercy killing was illegal in India.

But all this could change. C.K. Chandrappan, a CPI MP from Trichur, Kerala, has introduced the Euthanasia (Permission and Regulation) Bill, 2007, in the Lok Sabha. If passed, it would provide for a compassionate, humane and painless termination of the life of an individual who is permanently invalid or bedridden because of an incurable disease. Says Chandrappan, “If there is no hope of recovery for a patient, it is only humane to allow him to put an end to his pain and agony in a dignified manner.” Agrees Dr B.K. Rao, chairman, board of management, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi, “If it is established that the treatment is proving to be futile, euthanasia is a practical option for lessening the misery of patients.”

The Bill states that “a person who’s completely invalid and/or is bedridden or who cannot carry out his daily chores without regular assistance, can either himself or through persons authorised by him have the option to file an application for euthanasia with the civil surgeon or the chief medical officer (CMO) of the district government hospital”. The CMO will place the application before a medical board which will be responsible for examining the actual condition of the patient. If the board is convinced of the non-curable nature of the disease, it will issue a certificate recommending the patient’s case for euthanasia.

But the Bill has already sparked a controversy. Its detractors believe that it poses serious ethical and constitutional questions. “This Bill, if it came to pass, will abuse more than be of any use. It’s unconstitutional and would be in contravention of Article 21, which is the right to life,” says Geetanath Ganguly, executive chairman, Legal Aid Services, West Bengal.

Sister Annunciata of the Bangalore-based Respect for Life India (RFLI), a non-profit organisation, is as critical. “This kind of legislation is completely unacceptable, both ethically and morally. Also, since we can’t give life, we have no right to take life. With the standards of palliative care of the elderly in India improving, there’s no need to take this kind of a regressive step.”

In India, euthanasia is a crime. Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the attempt to commit suicide and section 306 of IPC deals with abetment of suicide — and both actions are punishable. Only those who are brain dead can be taken off life support, with the consent of family members.

The Bill seeks to counter that. It states that after getting a certificate recommending euthanasia from the medical board, the patient may file an application in the court of a district judge. On receiving the application, the district judge will appoint a team of lawyers to investigate and enquire from the patient whether he desires to be relieved of a painful life. If the district judge is satisfied that the patient seeks death without any extraneous influences, he can grant him permission.

Some believe that this is where the problem lies. Dr Rao believes that the patient may not be the best judge of his or her own medical situation. “Being in pain, the patient might believe his condition to be incurable and hopeless; the real scenario could be that with the advances in medical science, some treatment could be available somewhere. This communication gap would be difficult to breach and in such circumstances, it’s also difficult to convince patients that they have an option to fight back,” says Rao. “Legalising euthanasia means that we are putting a blanket ban on any kind of future medical breakthrough that could help save the patient’s life,” adds Ganguly.

The Bill, the critics fear, may also be abused. Ganguly, for one, is worried about people with “vested interests” stepping in — and managing to get a recommendation for euthanasia for property or other monetary reasons. “And how can a patient be in a position to ask for euthanasia when he or she is gravely ill,” asks Ganguly.

But, as Sumitra Padmanabhan, general secretary of the Calcutta-based Humanist Association, argues, any law can be exploited or misused. “It’s up to the State to ensure that it is not misused,” she says. To put a check on misuse, she suggests that a person, while healthy, should make a will, in the presence of witnesses, asking for an option of euthanasia when and if such a health condition arises. “Also, it should be laid down what property goes to whom to prevent the closest of kin from having any stakes in getting the patient put to death,” says Padmanabhan.

“It’s extremely important for patients who are incurable or completely bedridden to be allowed to be relieved of their pain,” Padmanabhan stresses.

Venkatesh’s mother, K. Sujata, would agree. Venkatesh wanted to donate his organs, but his doctors turned down his plea to take him off the life support system. Sujata filed a petition in the AP High Court seeking permission for the harvesting of his organs. Since his organs were in working condition, they had to be harvested before he died a natural death and infection set in, she argued. Venkatesh died naturally on December 17, two days after the court rejected his mother’s plea.

The Bill seeks to help people like Venkatesh and his mother, who fought — and lost — the battle for death. But since it is a private member’s bill and has not been moved by the government, it remains to be seen if it will have the support of Parliament.

But as Terry Schiavo’s case in the US underlines, euthanasia will always have its supporters and detractors. Schiavo, who lived in Florida and was gravely ill, was allowed to die on March 31, 2005, seven years after her husband filed an appeal for the removal of her feeding tube. Her parents opposed the move — and Schiavo, even in death, became a symbol for the two warring sides.

In India, the Bill may well see a similar battle.